Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The 'goats' in Matthew 25 are unbelievers not believers (sheep).
They show their unbelief by their works.
It is you who need to 'check the scripture'.
Well, if all you have is the Bible, you would certainly be in the dark about that, wouldn't you?
I don't think so. It is based on the Biblical ideas that the Apostles were especially equipped to spread the Gospel, and aside from that, all men are sinners and are corruptible.
You discard the evidence of the early Fathers and then use lack of evidence as "proof" that nothing is known, when in fact there is a continuous stream of writings and accounts of the of life of the Church, form the Apostles to this day, so we don't have to guess too much.
I do not discard that the writings are there. I have seen plenty on this thread. I say that none of them was inspired and all of them were and are subject to interpretation. I have been told here that Augustine even re-interpreted himself! :) The hierarchy voted on which of these writings (and which interpretation) was correct, and which were not, and that is fine. Those votes are not binding on me because I am of an unlike faith within Christianity.
The Reformation movement was hardly without error. Its legacy includes were mass murders, extermination of anabaptists, and endless splintering (Calvinists, Armenians, etc). You present the Reformation in idyllic terms as if it were free of any corruption and error. It was and it is nothing even close.
I never made any such claim. The forefathers of the Reformation were not perfect. For example, many still held to some Catholic beliefs. :) I said that God started the Reformation. You would tell me that God started the Apostolic Church and I would agree. You can't tell me that the Apostolic Church is not littered with widespread atrocities throughout time, EVEN TO THIS DAY. No Church God has ever started (meaning also OT) has ever turned out error-free. This is to be expected since the day to day administration is handled by fallible men.
And like I said, we have no Eastern church fathers before the 3rd century.
Moreover, justification by faith alone was not the key theological issues that was facing the early church, they were battling other heresies, like gnosticism, Arianism, Sabellianism etc.
By the way, Theodoret is, or at least can be, a very tricky, even dangerous fellow to quote, but of course he can be proof texted!
Well, that goes for most of the 'Fathers' who can be cited, that is why we make our final appeal to the scriptures.
It states that grace does the work, not man's works (but you know that)
Amen.
And that is the Baptist view, that free will must take the free gift of salvation, but it is all of grace, since man cannot do anything to earn it.
But salvation is an event, while growth is optional based on one's desire to stay in God's will, hence the admonition not to 'grieve or quench the Holy spirit (Eph.4,1Thess.5)
The Christian is not 'being' saved, he is saved (Eph.4:30)
§ 23. The Victory of Justifying Faith.
(Comp. § 7.)
The secret of Luther’s power and influence lies in his heroic faith. It delivered him from the chaos and torment of ascetic self-mortification and self-condemnation, gave him rest and peace, and made him a lordly freeman in Christ, and yet an obedient servant of Christ. This faith breathes through all his writings, dominated his acts, sustained him in his conflicts and remained his shield and anchor till the hour of death. This faith was born in the convent at Erfurt, called into public action at Wittenberg, and made him a Reformer of the Church.
By the aid of Staupitz and the old monk, but especially by the continued study of Paul’s Epistles, be was gradually brought to the conviction that the sinner is justified by faith alone, without works of law. He experienced this truth in his heart long before he understood it in all its bearings. He found in it that peace of conscience which he had sought in vain by his monkish exercises. He pondered day and night over the meaning of "the righteousness of God "(Rom. 1:17), and thought that it is the righteous punishment of sinners; but toward the close of his convent life he came to the conclusion that it is the righteousness which God freely gives in Christ to those who believe in him. Righteousness is not to be acquired by man through his own exertions and merits; it is complete and perfect in Christ, and all the sinner has to do is to accept it from Him as a free gift. Justification is that judicial act of God whereby he acquits the sinner of guilt and clothes him with the righteousness of Christ on the sole condition of personal faith which apprehends and appropriates Christ and shows its life and power by good works, as a good tree bringing forth good fruits. For faith in Luther’s system is far more than a mere assent of the mind to the authority of the church: it is a hearty trust and full surrender of the whole man to Christ; it lives and moves in Christ as its element, and is constantly obeying his will and following his example. It is only in connection with this deeper conception of faith that his doctrine of justification can be appreciated. Disconnected from it, it is a pernicious error.
The Pauline doctrine of justification as set forth in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, had never before been clearly and fully understood, not even by Augustin and Bernard, who confound justification with sanctification.137 Herein lies the difference between the Catholic and the Protestant conception. In the Catholic system justification (dikaivwsi") is a gradual process conditioned by faith and good works; in the Protestant system it is a single act of God, followed by sanctification. It is based upon the merits of Christ, conditioned by faith, and manifested by good works.138
This experience acted like a new revelation on Luther. It shed light upon the whole Bible and made it to him a book of life and comfort. He felt relieved of the terrible load of guilt by an act of free grace. He was led out of the dark prison house of self-inflicted penance into the daylight and fresh air of God’s redeeming love. Justification broke the fetters of legalistic slavery, and filled him with the joy and peace of the state of adoption; it opened to him the very gates of heaven.
Henceforth the doctrine of justification by faith alone was for him to the end of life the sum and substance of the gospel, the heart of theology, the central truth of Christianity, the article of the standing or falling church. By this standard he measured every other doctrine and the value of every book of the Bible. Hence his enthusiasm for Paul, and his dislike of James, whom he could not reconcile with his favorite apostle. He gave disproportion to solifidianism and presented it sometimes in most unguarded language, which seemed to justify antinomian conclusions; but he corrected himself, he expressly condemned antinomianism, and insisted on good works and a holy life as a necessary manifestation of faith.139 And it must not be forgotten that the same charge of favoring antinomianism was made against Paul, who rejects it with pious horror: "Let it never be!"
Thus the monastic and ascetic life of Luther was a preparatory school for his evangelical faith. It served the office of the Mosaic law which, by bringing the knowledge of sin and guilt, leads as a tutor to Christ (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:24). The law convicted, condemned, and killed him; the gospel comforted, justified, and made him alive. The law enslaved him, the gospel set him free. He had trembled like a slave; now he rejoiced as a son in his father’s house. Through the discipline of the law he died to the law, that he might live unto God (Gal. 2:19).
In one word, Luther passed through the experience of Paul. He understood him better than any mediaeval schoolman or ancient father. His commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians is still one of the best, for its sympathetic grasp of the contrast between law and gospel, between spiritual slavery and spiritual freedom.
Luther held this conviction without dreaming that it conflicted with the traditional creed and piety of the church. He was brought to it step by step. The old views and practices ran along side with it, and for several years he continued to be a sincere and devout Catholic. It was only the war with Tetzel and its consequences that forced him into the position of a Reformer and emancipated him from his old connections.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/7_ch02.htm
The Protestant and anti-Romish character of Luther’s New Testament is undeniable in his prefaces, his discrimination between chief books and less important books, his change of the traditional order, and his unfavorable judgments on James, Hebrews, and Revelation.467 It is still more apparent in his marginal notes, especially on the Pauline Epistles, where he emphasizes throughout the difference between the law and the gospel, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone; and on the Apocalypse, where he finds the papacy in the beast from the abyss (Rev. 13), and in the Babylonian harlot (Rev. 17).468 The anti-papal explanation of the Apocalypse became for a long time almost traditional in Protestant commentaries.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic translators used the same liberty of marginal annotations and pictorial illustrations in favor of the doctrines and usages of their own church. Emser’s New Testament is full of anti-Lutheran glosses. In Rom. 3:28, he protests on the margin against Luther’s allein, and says, "Paul by the words ’without works of the law’ does not mean that man is saved by faith alone, without good works, but only without works of the law, that is, external circumcision and other Jewish ceremonies." He therefore confines the "law" here to the ritual law, and "works" to Jewish works; while, according to the best modern commentators, Paul means the whole law, moral as well as ceremonial, and all works commanded by the law. And yet even in the same chapter and throughout the whole Epistle to the Romans, Emser copies verbatim Luther’s version for whole verses and sections; and where he departs from his language, it is generally for the worse.
A Protestant version is bound only by the original text, and breathes an air of freedom from traditional restraint. The Roman Church will never use Luther’s Version or King James’s Version, and could not do so without endangering her creed; nor will German Protestants use Emser’s and Eck’s Versions, or English Protestants the Douay Version. The Romanist must become evangelical before he can fully apprehend the free spirit of the gospel as revealed in the New Testament.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/7_ch04.htm
The Bible says that the Spirit will lead us individually (John 14:16-17, Rom. 8:9) and He will also lead God's Church corporately (Eph. 2:22). I haven't commented on the latter, as we do not agree on who "God's Church" is.
Reading the OT itself without the mind of the Church will NOT yield that Jesus Christ is the Messiah - it actually denies it in the literal sense: [Deut 21:22-23] ... This is a huge reason why so many Jews didn't convert. They were Sola Scriptura Jews who read only the literal sense of Scriptures, not seeing Christ in the many prophesies.
There were hundreds of signs in the OT that Jesus was the Messiah. Many were literal, some required interpretation. This does not offend Sola Scriptura, for it is not a doctrine of literal-only. It is a doctrine of proper context within the rest of scripture. Many things in the Bible were specifically intended to be interpreted. If the Bible was literal only, then it would contradict itself.
FK: "The Spirit reveals only the truth and men appropriate it to varying degrees. Sanctification improves the correctness of the apprehension of the Spirit's revelations. Christians grow in their faiths and are able to accept higher understandings."
The problem with this "system" is that one never knows the truth...
I don't see it as any less superior to your system, which is to follow men who claim to have all the answers. I suppose you would have more respect for Protestantism if we had elected Luther and Calvin co-Popes and blindly followed everything they ever wrote. :)
It [2 Tim. 3:16-17] doesn't say that. You destroy your own concept of Sola Scriptura!!! It's a far cry from "Scripture is USEFUL" to "Scripture is absolutely EVERYTHING"
It says that scripture makes the man of God thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work. Do you believe there is a level of equipment that is higher than "thoroughly"? Are there other works that Tradition instructs on which are not included in "every"?
Eph 4:11-13 gives us another "thing" that "utterly equips and perfects the Christian", and it isn't the Bible.
Yes it is. This passage says that teaching is good to prepare God's people. Do you suppose it means teaching that is contrary to scripture (as it is today)? I don't either. The teaching should not be of themselves but be in conformity with the scripture. Teaching scripture is good. Jesus did it all the time.
Absolutely, and Amen!
"I believe the Reformers probably did not become Orthodox for the same reasons I did not become Orthodox. They saw the Pelagius error in the system-that man needs to do something for God (cooperate, have faith, etc.)."
Never thought of that. You may be right. I will say that the Thubingen divines, to my recollection, never raised that point with the EP, though.
" And like I said, we have no Eastern church fathers before the 3rd century"
You've lost me here. What about +Ignatius or +Polycarp just for starters?
I haven't studied Calvin's influence on government except for a few articles posted here. However, my understanding is that he wasn't trying to create a theocracy. Rather it spawned democracies.
And we see WHO precisely is active in politics. ;O)
St. Irenaeus speaks of a certain number of letters written by Polycarp,[8] but we have only his letter to the Philipplans, written on the occasion of Ignatius' sojourn among them.
We have Polycarp's reply, written probably soon after the death of St. Ignatius,[9] but the entire text is extant only in a mediocre Latin translation. All the Greek manuscripts which have reached us stop towards the end of ch. ix. Fortunately Eusebius has transcribed the whole of ch. ix as well as ch. xiii, - the two most important chapters.[10]
The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tixeront/section1-1.html#polycarp
LOL! Well, I suppose plain meaning is in the eye of the beholder. The only passage that even comes close to attempting to claim that Baptism has salvific effects is 1 Peter 3:20-21. I have already made my case that it was not the water that saved Noah and his family, it was the ark. The comparison doesn't hold. In addition, most translations do not use "antitype" as in foreshadowed, they use words like "symbolize" or "like figure" (KJV). Finally, since this passage speaks of "saving", in order to accept your version would require throwing out all the verses that say that salvation is by faith. There is a mountain of scripture against your interpretation. Baptism is symbolic of spiritual salvation.
I have also already discussed Acts 2:38. Repentance is the inward step that saves and baptism is the outward, public representation of that. Here, "for" means "because of" just like in Matt. 12:41.
Likewise you have seen my comments about John 3:5. There are two births needed to be saved. One is natural birth and one is spiritual birth. Neither involve a water Baptism. That comes later to observe the spiritual birth and to publicly identify with Christ's Church.
Mark 16:16 makes it clear that since the only two choices are saved or damned, that if you are not baptized you are not damned. Baptism is not required for salvation.
In Acts 22:16, calling on the name of the Lord (believing) is what washes away sins, not water.
Rom 6:2-4 speaks of baptism of the Spirit into Christ. Water baptism symbolizes this. Water isn't even mentioned here. The exact same can be said for 1 Cor 6:11, Col 2:11-13, and Titus 3:5-6
Heb 10:22-23 doesn't even speak of baptism of any kind. Neither does Ez. 36:24-28.
Adults get baptized because of their faith in Christ, but without the washing of Baptism, we don't have faith.
Christ's ministry was not about salvation by ritual, it was about salvation by grace and faith.
This is why I harp that there is only two views of scripture. The Reformers didn't really leave. They simply put things back the way they were. The Catholic Church, otoh, left the Reformers.
I will say that the Thubingen divines, to my recollection, never raised that point with the EP, though.
If by the "Thubingen divines" you mean Orthodox, I can understand why they would never raise the point; it was simply outside of their paradigm. The Reformed view that fester in the western church was a co-equal doctrine along with the Orthodox synergistic view. I think history shows the Reformed view was actually the premier western doctrine but slowly, and gradually over time, lost its importance. Both views were tolerated for 1500 years until the pressure became too great.
But for the Orthodox there was never a Reformed view. When the Reformation finally happened, to the east this looked like a completely new view simply because it was never taught in the Orthodox church.
There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelae, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnaeans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.
It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.
But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day. Criticism, indeed, fluctuated a good deal as to which Epistles should be accepted and which rejected. Archp. Usher (1644), Isaac Vossius (1646), J. B. Cotelerius (1672), Dr. T. Smith (I709), and others, edited the writings ascribed to Ignatius in forms differing very considerably as to the order in which they were arranged, and the degree of authority assigned them, until at length, from about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the seven Greek Epistles, of which a translation is here given, came to be generally accepted in their shorter form as the genuine writings of Ignatius.
Before this date, however, there had not been wanting some who refused to acknowledge the authenticity of these Epistles in either of the recensions in which they were then known to exist. By far the most learned and elaborate work maintaining this position was that of Daillé (or Dallaeus), published in 1666. This drew forth in reply the celebrated Vindiciae of Bishop Pearson, which appeared in 1672. It was generally supposed that this latter work had established on an immoveable foundation the genuineness of the shorter form of the Ignatian Epistles; and, as we have stated above, this was the conclusion almost universally accepted down to our own day. The only considerable exception to this concurrence was presented by Whiston, who laboured to maintain in his Primitive Christianity Revived (1711) the superior claims of the longer recension of the Epistles, apparently influenced in doing so by the support which he thought they furnished to the kind of Arianism which he had adopted.
But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History (1743): "have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger.... But whether the smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question."
This expression of uncertainty was repeated in substance by Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755), Griesbach
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/ignatius.html
And there is no need to add anything. However, St. Gregory Palams, leading to that finishng statement, described the procession of the Spirit from the Father and from the Son in a way that reflects Catholic theology. So, there is no conflict in the filioque itself, save that it is incomplete and therefore cannot fully express the ultimate truth we know, namely that "as regards His existence, the Spirit proceeds form the Father" Who is the source and cause of everything, including Divinity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.